Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium

December 4-5, 2003 * Kansas City, Missouri

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The speakers, discussants, and participants assembled represented the wide diversity of individuals with a vested interest in LD determination issues. Advocates, instructional staff, researchers, and state-level education officials brought their collective and considerable expertise to the discussions.

David J. Francis of the University of Houston presented this invited paper during the symposium. For links to other papers and materials, visit the main Symposium 2003 page.


Response to Intervention (RTI):
A Conceptually and Statistically Superior Alternative to Discrepancy

Previous Page
(Single tests)

References

Bereiter, C. (1967). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In C.W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in the measurement of change. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D.P. (Eds) (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christensen, C.A. (1992). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has the quest led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 276-278.

Cisek, G.J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G.J. Cisek (Ed.). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.

Dobbins, D.A. (1988). Yule's "hump" revisited. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 338-344.

Donavon, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M. Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidenced-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan, Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185-250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fletcher, J.M., & Morris, R. Classification of disabled learners: Beyond exclusionary definitions. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986, 55-80.

Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Stuebing, K.K., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (in press).Psychometric approaches to the identification of learning disabilities: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.

Gilger, J.W. (2002). Current issues in the neurology and genetics of learning-related traits and disorders: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 490-491.

Joint Standards on the Use and Interpretation of Test Scores in Psychology and Education (2001). American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association and National Council on Measurement in Education.

Jorm, A.F., Share, D.L., Matthews, M., & Matthews, R. (1986). Cognitive factors at school entry predictive of specific reading retardation and general reading backwardness: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology, 45-54.

Lewis, C., Hitch, G.J., & Walker, P. (1994). The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in 9- to 10-year-old boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 35, 283-292.

Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C.E. Finn, Jr., RA.J. Rotherham, & C.R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.) Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute

MacMillan, D.L., & Siperstein, G.N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan, Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287-368). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Maxwell, S.E., & Delaney, H.D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181-190.

Miles, T.R., & Haslum, M.N. (1986). Dyslexia: Anomaly or normal variation. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 103-117.

Morris, R., & Fletcher, J.M. (1988). Classification in neuropsychology: A theoretical framework and research paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 640-658.

Muthen, B., Khoo, B., Francis, D., Kim-Boscardin, C. (2003). Analysis of reading skills development from Kindergarten through first grade: An application of growth mixture modeling to sequential processes. In S.R. Reise & N Duan (Ed.), Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues, and applications (pp. 71-89). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Muthen, B. & Muthen, L. (2002). MPlus User's Guide. StatModel: Los Angeles. Reynolds, C. (1984-1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-476.

Rodgers, B. (1983). The identification and prevalence of specific reading retardation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 369-373.

Rogosa, D. (1995). Myths and methods: "Myths about longitudinal research"(plus supplemental questions. In J.M. Gottman (Ed.). The analysis of change (pp. 3-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181-197.

Shalev, R.S., Auerbach, J., Manor, O., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2000). Developmental dyscalculia: prevalence and prognosis. European Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 58-64.

Shaywitz, S.E., Escobar, M.D., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Distribution and temporal stability of dyslexia in an epidemiological sample of 414 children followed longitudinally. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145-150.

Shepard, L. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79-91.

Silva, P.A., McGee, R., & Williams, S. (1985). Some characteristics of nine-year-old boys with general reading backwardness or specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 407-421.

Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identify early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.

Stevenson, J. (1988). Which aspects of reading disability show a "hump" in their distribution? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 77-85.

Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E. & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.

Vaughn, S.R., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman-Davis, P. (in press). Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities.

Vellutino, F.F., Scanlon, D.M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two year follow-up of difficult remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In B.R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale, pp. 73-120. York Press: Baltimore, MD.

Wood, F.B., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2001). Emerging issues in the genetics of dyslexia: A methodological preview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 503-512.

Previous Page
(Single tests)

IDEAs that Work logo

The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.